Photovoltaic Cooking in the Developing

World

Final Design Report

12/09/16

Sponsor: Dr. Schwartz

Tyler Watkins – ME – tcwatkin@calpoly.edu

Chris O’Day – ME – csoday@calpoly.edu
Omar Arriaga – EE – oarriaga@calpoly.edu
1
 2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 - Introduction......................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 - Objective ............................................................................................................................. 9
1.3 - Project Management......................................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 - Gantt chart ................................................................................................................. 10
1.3.2 - PERT Chart .................................................................................................................. 12
1.4 - Team Member Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 13
1.4.1 - Communication to sponsor ........................................................................................ 13
1.4.2 - Secretary (documentation) ........................................................................................ 13
1.4.3 - Budget ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.4.4 - Manufacturing Considerations ................................................................................... 14
1.4.5 - Research ..................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2 - Background ................................................................................................................. 15
2.1 - Market Research ............................................................................................................... 15
2.2 - Engineering Specifications................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 3 - Design Development .................................................................................................. 18
3.1 - Brainstorming .................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 - Insulation .................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 - Loading Technique ..................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3 - Electrical system ......................................................................................................... 21
3.1.4 - Energy storage ............................................................................................................ 22
3.1.5 - Overall designs ........................................................................................................... 23
3.2 - Preliminary Prototyping/Testing ....................................................................................... 25
Chapter 4 - Description of the Final Design................................................................................... 29
4.1 - Overall Description ............................................................................................................ 29
4.2 - Base ................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1 - Function ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 - Components (material selection, tolerancing, ect.) ................................................... 31
4.2.3 - Manufacturing ............................................................................................................ 31
4.3 - Outer Cylinder ................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.1 - Function ...................................................................................................................... 32
 3
4.3.2 - Components ............................................................................................................... 33
4.3.3 – Manufacturing ........................................................................................................... 33
4.4 - Inner Cooking Chamber ..................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 – Function ..................................................................................................................... 34
4.4.2 – Components .............................................................................................................. 35
4.4.3 - Manufacturing ............................................................................................................ 35
4.5 - Lid ...................................................................................................................................... 36
4.5.1 – Function ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.5.2 – Components .............................................................................................................. 36
4.5.3 - Manufacturing ............................................................................................................ 37
4.6 - Electrical System................................................................................................................ 38
4.7 - Cost Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 39
4.8 - Assembly ........................................................................................................................... 40
4.9 - Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 40
4.10 - Engineering Analysis ........................................................................................................ 40
4.10.1 - Optimum Resistance ................................................................................................ 40
4.10.2 - Heat Transfer Analysis .............................................................................................. 44
4.10.3 - Transient Thermal Modeling .................................................................................... 45
4.11 - Safety Considerations ...................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 5 - Product Realization..................................................................................................... 49
5.1 - Developing World Design .................................................................................................. 49
5.2 - Manufacturing Process...................................................................................................... 49
5.2.1 - Custom Heating Element............................................................................................ 49
5.2.2 - Outside Structure ....................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 6 - Design Verification...................................................................................................... 53
6.1 - Testing Plan ....................................................................................................................... 53
6.1.1 - Repeatable Testing ..................................................................................................... 53
6.1.2 - Real-Time Testing ....................................................................................................... 53
6.2 – Testing .............................................................................................................................. 53
6.3 - Plan for Uganda ................................................................................................................. 56
6.4 - Comparison to Thermal Modeling .................................................................................... 56
6.5 - Power Measurement Calculation ...................................................................................... 57
 4
Chapter 7 - Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 59
7.1 - Implementation in Uganda ............................................................................................... 59
7.1.1 - Technical Design/Specifications ................................................................................. 59
7.1.2 - Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................... 66
7.1.3 - Air Quality Improvement............................................................................................ 67
7.1.4 - Results ........................................................................................................................ 68
7.2 - Future Recommendations ................................................................................................. 69
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 71
Appendix A - QFD ...................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix B Design Sketches...................................................................................................... 72
Appendix B.1- Design Sketches - Hay Bale Design ................................................................ 72
Appendix B.2 - Design Sketches - Insulated Bag.................................................................... 73
Appendix B.3 - Design Sketches - Drop in w/ Lid, Oven Style ............................................... 74
Appendix B.4 - Design Decision - Barrel with lid Design........................................................ 75
Appendix C: Final design CAD .................................................................................................... 76
C.1 - Base Assembly ............................................................................................................... 77
C.1.1 - Base Plate ................................................................................................................... 78
C.1.2 - Base Cylinder - flat...................................................................................................... 79
C.1.3 - Base Cylinder - Rolled ................................................................................................. 80
C.2.1 - Shell - Flat ................................................................................................................... 81
C.2.2 - Shell - Rolled ............................................................................................................... 82
C.2.3 - Rebar Handles - Bent .................................................................................................. 83
C.2.4 - U-Bolt ......................................................................................................................... 84
C.2.5 - ¼-inch Rivet ................................................................................................................ 84
C.2.6 - Outer Cylinder Sub-Assembly..................................................................................... 85
C.3.1 - Cooking Chamber Structure ....................................................................................... 86
C.4.1 - Lid ............................................................................................................................... 87
C.4.2 - Handle ........................................................................................................................ 88
C.4.3 - Hook ........................................................................................................................... 89
C.4.4 - M10 bolt ..................................................................................................................... 90
C.4.5 - M10 Washer ............................................................................................................... 90
C.4.6 - M10 Nut ..................................................................................................................... 90
 5
C.4.7 - Chicken Wire - Flat ..................................................................................................... 91
C.4.8 - Chicken Wire - Base.................................................................................................... 92
C.4.9 - Chicken Wire Assembled ............................................................................................ 93
C.4.10 - Lid Assembly ............................................................................................................. 94
C.4.11 - Lid Exploded Assembly ............................................................................................. 95
C.5 - Full Assembly - Exploded View ...................................................................................... 96
Appendix D: List of Vendors, Contact information and pricing ................................................. 97
Appendix E: Vendor supplied Component Specifications and Data Sheets .............................. 98
Appendix F: Detailed Supporting Analysis................................................................................. 99
Appendix G: Other Information............................................................................................... 102
Appendix H: Owner’s Manual.................................................................................................. 103
References ................................................................................................................................... 105
 6
List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Design Phase Dates....................................................................................................... 11

Figure 1.2: Specific dates during design phase ........................................................................ 12
Figure 1.3: PERT chart ....................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.1: Breadboard diagram of testing equipment ......................................................... 21
Figure 3.2: Schematic of testing components ........................................................................... 22
Figure 3.3: Charging circuit for lead-acid batteries ................................................................ 23
Figure 3.4: Modified burner ............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 3.5: Top view of prototype ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.6: Preliminary testing temperature vs. time ........................................................... 28
Figure 4.1: Overall design ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.2: Base rendering ............................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.3: Outer cylinder rendering ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.4: Inner cooking chamber rendering .......................................................................... 34
Figure 4.5: Lid rendering .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.6: Electrical system............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 4.7: Power curve of PV panel ............................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.8: PV simple electrical model ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.9: Standard solar panel power curve. The operating points for each curve at
its optimized resistance are indicated with black open circles while the operating
points of each curve at our chosen resistance are highlighted by red dots. Power is
equal to the area of an inscribed rectangle defined by the operating points ............... 43
Figure 4.10: FEA heat transfer model .......................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.11: Cylindrical geometry for heat loss analysis...................................................... 46
Figure 5.1: Nickel-Chromium Heating Elements. Resistive Nickel Chromium wires
are held into place in a mold (left). After concrete hardens, the finished heaters can
be used (right). ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.2: The first step was digging a hole which was approximately 3 ft. by 3 ft.
and 12 inches deep. Basically, the hole should allow 10 inches of insulation on all
sides of the pot, which is the minimum insulation for the desired thermal resistance.
The sides of the hole were supported by mud/clay. .............................................................. 50
Figure 5.3: The dirt from the hole was used to make bricks by mixing mud and straw
with a 1:1 ratio. We made a fixture made from plywood and 2x4 to compact and
form the mixture into bricks. They were then cut using a saw to roughly 8 inch
sections. The bricks were laid out and stacked around the hole so that the total
height of the cooker was about 2 feet. ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.4: To make a countertop, we cut a hole in the middle of a piece of plywood
and added two more holes to allow space for the hands to reach into the cooker.
The top surface of the plywood was then covered with a wire mesh. A thin layer of
cement and sand mixture was spread on the top surface of the counter. We
smoothed and textured the top surface by spraying water and flattening the surface
with a trowel. ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.5: Solidworks model of this design ............................................................................. 52
 7
Figure 6.1: Test #1............................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 6.2: Test #2............................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 6.3: Test #3............................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 6.4: Temperature of water over time during heating (red diamonds),
compared to the thermal model (black line) ............................................................................ 57
Figure 6.5: Temperature of 2.7kg of water in solar cooker. The heater was turned off
at 260 minutes represented by the red data point. Data after this point shows the
cooling of the system. The slopes of the red lines indicate the temperature gain/loss
over time and are used to calculate power. ............................................................................... 58
Figure 7.1: Ni-chrome wire configuration of the heating element ................................... 61
Figure 7.2: Dried heating element ................................................................................................. 61
Figure 7.3: Burlap sack prototype ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 7.4: Burlap sack prototype test #2.................................................................................. 63
Figure 7.5: top view of reed mat design ...................................................................................... 64
Figure 7.6: Reed mat prototype test #1 ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 7.7: Reed mat prototype test #2 ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 7.8: Pre-stove installation particulate matter ............................................................ 67
Figure 7.9: Post-stove installation particulate matter........................................................... 68
Figure 7.10: Recipient of the first solar cookstove ................................................................. 69
 8
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Gantt chart dates ............................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.1: Engineering specifications table ............................................................................... 16
Table 3.1: Pugh matrix for insulation type................................................................................. 18
Table 3.2: Final decision matrix for insulation type ............................................................... 19
Table 3.3: Pugh matrix for loading technique........................................................................... 20
Table 3.4: Final decision matrix ..................................................................................................... 24
Table 3.5: Preliminary prototype cost analysis ....................................................................... 25
Table 4.1: Cost analysis...................................................................................................................... 39
Table 7.1: Cost analysis of Ugandan cookstoves ...................................................................... 60
Table 7.2: Solar panel statistics ...................................................................................................... 60
Table 7.3: Prototype test coefficients........................................................................................... 66
 9
Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 - Introduction

Many third world countries are using methods of cooking that are often dangerous
to both themselves and the environment. The energy used for these methods include
burning charcoal, cow manure, wood, and other materials which pollute the environment.
We aim to present a new method of cooking that is reliable, cheap, safe, and renewable.
Our solution is to use photovoltaic cells as the energy source to cook. The Photovoltaic
cooker was designed to use minimal energy at a very low cost. Our main target is third
world countries and will ideally be purchased for them through the use of carbon credits
and from private organizations.

The cost of photovoltaic cells is decreasing rapidly. Currently, the cost of these
cells is approximately $1.00 per Watt. Solar panels today are approximately 20%
efficient, however this efficiency will continue to increase as the technology advances. In
today’s market there are cookers using photovoltaics, but they require upwards of 1000
Watts of power. Using that much power requires several solar panels and installation
materials that are expensive and nonexistent in many third world countries. In order to
make our design more realistic for third world applications, we are constraining our
power output to 100 Watts. This will lower the cost of our solar panel to a reasonable
expense. With such low power, it is unlikely that the cooker would ever reach
temperatures high enough to cook because of the heat lost to the environment. By
insulating the cooker, we hope to minimize that heat loss and yield high enough
temperatures to cook.

Many third world countries use a boil and simmer method of cooking. This means
we will only need the cooker to reach boiling temperature: 100°C. In a research article
conducted by the Department of Physics at Sardar Patel University in India, it was
reported that with the use of photovoltaic cells providing as little as 30 Watts of power,
the experimenters were able to properly heat food. In two hours an internal oven
temperature of 90°C was reached.

1.2 - Objective
Our overall objective was to design, build, and test an insulated “boil and
simmer” cooker that is powered by a 100W solar panel for use in third world countries.
In particular, we designed this for Uganda because they traditionally cook using a boil
and simmer method. The system was designed with the Ugandan villagers in mind so that
manufacturing, use, and maintenance could all be done on site in Uganda. A Quality
Function Deployment matrix was designed to identify the stakeholders, customer
requirements, the engineering specifications needed to meet these requirements, and how
 10
our design compares to competitors. This can be seen in further detail by looking at the
QFD shown in Appendix A.

There are several stakeholders that were kept in mind throughout the scope of our
project. The African villagers are our primary customers since they will be using our
product to cook food daily. For their convenience the product must be easy to use and
manufactured with readily available tools and materials. Our design must be low cost so
we can implement multiple cookers in villages with the use of Carbon credits. One of our
biggest considerations was designing the cooker with the villagers’ culture kept in mind.
Ugandan culture traditionally cooks “boil and simmer” style foods so we designed our
product around this.

The UN was another important customer to consider for our project since they
determine the carbon credit funding for the cooker. They manage a system that distributes
carbon credits for projects that are working to reduce emissions. The current method of
Ugandan cooking generates a large quantity of carbon dioxide. Our product works to
minimize the production of harmful emissions produced from cooking. A requirement
was set to reduce the carbon footprint so that we can create a safer, less destructive
method of cooking for Uganda as well as receive carbon credit funding.

Our final customers took into consideration were non-profit organizations such as
Aid-Africa. They helped us with the implementation in Uganda and were a crucial part of
the success of our project. The organization provided us with local knowledge and
connections to the right villagers who received the first two solar cookers.

1.3 - Project Management

In this section we briefly discuss the timeline of this project and lists the major
deliverables due. Individual team member’s responsibilities are also discussed.

1.3.1 - Gantt chart

The following figures describe the timeline of the design phase of our project.
Many of the dates and timelines are flexible. This means we may have started designing
earlier than planned and constructed a prototype before the Build Phase started. More
specific dates of the design phase are listed below in Figure 1.2
 11
Table 1.1: Gantt chart dates

Figure 1.1: Design Phase Dates

 12

Figure 1.2: Specific dates during design phase

1.3.2 - PERT Chart

In order to further develop our project plan, we created a PERT chart that allows
us to look at a critical path for completing the project. The PERT chart looks at which
tasks can be completed at the same time so that we can work more efficiently during the
course of the project. This can be seen in Figure 1.3 below.
 13

Required Duration
Index Activity Description
Processor (weeks)
A Ideation/idea refinement N/A 1
B Market Research N/A always
C Design Analysis A 2
D Prototyping C 1
E Testing D 2
F Cost Estimate C,D 1
G* Field testing (Uganda)* E 3
H Iteration G* or E 3
I Production Analysis G*/E,F 1
J Project Expo Preparation I,B 1
K Final Report J 2

Figure 1.3: PERT chart

1.4 - Team Member Responsibilities

1.4.1 - Communication to sponsor

Omar was predominantly responsible for communication to our sponsor.

However, this does not mean that other members of the group were unable to contact the
sponsor. We met with our sponsor weekly as a group, as well as communicated via email
from our shared team email address (photovoltaiccookers@gmail.com) if we had
additional questions or topics of discussion for our sponsor in between meeting times.

1.4.2 - Secretary (documentation)

Chris was primarily in charge of documenting our project progress. In addition to

Chris’s documentation, members documented their progress on individual efforts. Each
 14
week we will assess the progress of our weekly project goals and discuss this with our
advisor. The leader of this meeting will rotate each week.

1.4.3 - Budget

Tyler managed the budget for this team. We aimed to make the product as
inexpensive as possible while still attaining the designated specifications. Excluding
Uganda implementation, there was
little to no travel costs associated with the design, building, and testing phases of
this project so the budget will only include materials for manufacture and testing
equipment.

1.4.4 - Manufacturing Considerations

Although all members should be included in the manufacturing consideration

because all subsystems need to be fabricated and fit together, the majority of the
manufacturing was done by the ME students. They also have more experience using
manufacturing equipment and thus know what is possible to be made with the tools
available to us. It is important that all members of the group agree on a design and
acknowledge that their subsystem will work with the overall plan. This includes, but is
not limited to dimensioning, subsystem integration, and calculations for expected testing
values to ensure the manufactured product will be safe to use. Tyler and Chris led the
insulation, and heat transfer subsystems of the project. Omar was in charge of the
electronic components of our design. He made sure these could be incorporated
effectively into the rest of the product.

1.4.5 - Research

All members were equally responsible for researching information for this
project. We all collaborated at meetings to discuss what topics we researched and the
conclusions that we have made from the research.
 15
Chapter 2 - Background

2.1 - Market Research

After conducting research, we found that the majority of the solar cookers on
today’s market use reflectors as a source of energy. When the reflectors concentrate the
sun correctly, they can supply sufficient heat to thermal mass or even directly to the food.
The downside of a reflection based solar cooker is that they are often large and difficult
to set up. Additionally, they must be directed towards the sun correctly at all times or
their efficiency will be greatly affected.

Another product that interested us is an insulated bag called The Wonderbag.

These do not require solar energy to cook food, rather they utilize a traditional stove to
bring food to the desired temperature then act as solely an insulator to keep this food
warm. The Wonderbag is a stand-alone, non-electric insulated unit designed to reduce the
amount of heating time required in the cooking of food. We aim to use the idea of
reducing heat loss by means of thick insulation around an already hot pot of food. By
integrating a heating element into the insulation, we will be able to bring the food to a
boil, and keep it at a simmering temperature throughout the cooking process.

The latest technology in renewable energy stoves comes from a company called
Biolite Energy. The Biolite camp stove generates usable electricity for charging mobile
phones and other personal devices. Burning only wood, the camp stove creates a
smokeless campfire that can cook meals and boil water in minutes. The technology works
by capturing wasted heat from the fire through a heat probe. The heat is converted into
usable electricity via a thermoelectric generator and sends electricity to a 5V USB port.

2.2 - Engineering Specifications

We created an engineering specifications table, seen in Table 2.1, to better
understand our customers’ requirements. Each specification has a target, tolerance, risk
level, and compliance. The levels of risk are low (L), medium (M), and high (H).
Compliance, or how each requirement will be verified, has four different methods:
analysis (A), test (T), similarity to existing designs (S), and inspection (I).
 16
Table 2.1: Engineering specifications table
Spec # Parameter Requirements or Target Tolerance Risk Compliance
No requirement for max
1 Weight/Size N/A N/A N/A
weight
2 Cost $100 ±$20 M A
3 Power 100 Watts Max L T
Withstand 100°C internal
4 Safety temperature, Outer Min/Max H A,T,I
temperature max of 56°C
Assembled by no more
than 2 people, using
5 Assembly Max M T,S
equipment readily
available in Uganda
Requires maintenance
6 Maintenance Max M T,I,S
less than 3 times per year
One person can operate
7 Operation Max M I
completely
Prototype to be able to
8 Shipping N/A M I
ship to Uganda
Effective Insulation,
9 Material N/A H A,T
cheap
Manufacturing equipment
10 Manufacturing N/A H I,S
available in Uganda
Boil 1L water in 90 mins,
±30
11 Heating simmer temp throughout L A,T
Minutes
day
Log temperature readings
12 Data Feedback during boil and simmer N/A M T
processes
Split power to USB port
13 Power Control when 100W is N/A M T,A
unnecessary for cooking

These closely match the specifications set in the QFD [Appendix A]. The weight
of our design is not an important specification since the cooker will be built into a home,
thus it will not need to be moved. For this reason, there is no risk for the weight of our
product. It will not be considered for any design decisions besides its shipping.

We set a target goal of $100 ±$20 to be able to set up several stoves in villages
with the use of carbon credits. It is very important to keep the cost low. Due to the
presence of non-profit organizations like Aid Africa and the UN’s distribution of carbon
credits, funding can be found elsewhere. This $100 cost does not include the cost of a
 17
solar panel. The photovoltaic cells currently cost an additional $100; however, with the
prices constantly decreasing this cost will be lower in the future.

In order to ensure that our product was safe we needed to design it to withstand
temperatures of over 100°C without fully combusting or melting any of the components.
We also wanted to ensure that people will not get burnt if they came into contact with any
exposed surfaces on the cooker. According to the American Burn Association, it takes 15
seconds of exposure to open skin for an object at 56°C to severely burn you. We decided
to set this to our maximum outer temperature to ensure the safety of the users. This is a
high-risk specification because it could result in damaged houses or the injury of users.
The outer surface temperature can be theoretically derived using our transient heat
transfer model prior to testing. During testing and use, temperature will be regulated
through thermocouple testing and visual inspection of the inner components after use.

We wanted the assembly, maintenance, and operation all to be relatively simple

so that implementation in Uganda was feasible. A maximum of two people must be able
to build a stove using only readily available tools in Africa. Low maintenance was
another important characteristic. This is relatively easy to achieve considering the
simplicity of design. The cooker should only require one person to operate. This means
that the components such as the food and pot need to be easily removable from the
cooker. These are all medium risk specifications. If not met, current Ugandan cooking
methods will most likely be preferred over the solar cooker.

The material used for insulation must be low cost to ensure we stay within budget.
The insulation material is fairly important because it determines the performance of our
cooker under low power. Without good insulation, a 100W PV panel will not sufficiently
heat water to a boil. This specification negatively correlates to cost due to the fact that
manufactured insulation is typically expensive. Heat transfer analysis was used to
distinguish what materials we can use and how much we will need.

We wanted to boil water in a reasonable amount of time so we used the target

goal given in the PVE Cooker Patent that says a 100 W PV panel can boil 1 liter of water
in 90 minutes. Once a boiling temperature is reached we required our design to maintain
a simmering temperature for the remainder of the time food is cooking. This allows
Ugandan users to cook multiple times a day in a similar fashion that they are used to. In
order to verify this, heat transfer analysis and testing were performed.
 18
Chapter 3 - Design Development

3.1 - Brainstorming

Before we began to brainstorm different ideas for designs, we looked at Dr.

Schwartz’s Appropriate Technologies project. As seen in Appendix B.1, their simple
design is just a bale of hay with a spot hollowed out to put the heater and pot into. This is
a very basic design that does not satisfy our customer requirements and design criteria,
but it gave us a foundation for brainstorming. It is discussed later in the report.

We began by looking at our engineering specifications and brainstormed different

ways we could accomplish each task. All ideas were accepted no matter how outlandish
in order to generate the highest quantity of designs. This brainstorming left us with many
options to pursue as a first iteration. In order to determine which will yield the best
results we put our designs and some intermediate elements through different decision
matrices. The first matrix used in our decision process was the Pugh Matrix. We did this
with different types of insulation, energy storage units, heating elements, and the loading
techniques to establish our overall design.

3.1.1 - Insulation

As seen in Table 3.1, we used a Pugh matrix to help us decide which insulation
would be best suited for our design. By looking at our specifications we decided that cost,
thermal conductivity, R-value, availability, and resistance to moisture were the most
important criteria when considering insulation types. We used fiberglass insulation as our
datum because it is the most common type of insulation used as well as the insulation
used in last year’s project. After filling out the Pugh matrix, we found that cornhusks,
mud, sand, and rock wool could be eliminated.

Table 3.1: Pugh matrix for insulation type

Rice Corn Spray
PS PU Fiberglass Hay Mud Sand Rockwool
Concept Hulls Husk Foam
 19
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cost + - - D + + - + + -
Thermal Conductivity S + + - S + - - +
R Value S + + A - S + - - +
Availability + S S + + - + + -
Resistance to Moisture + + + T S - + - - -
Σ+ 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2
Σ- 0 1 1 U 2 1 2 3 3 3
ΣS 2 1 1 M 1 2 0 0 0 0

Because our Pugh matrix was not weighted, we decided some of our results could
be skewed. Although spray foam has a good thermal conductivity, R-value, and
resistance to moisture it is very expensive per unit volume. We decided to research the
cost of each insulation type and graph their price per unit volume vs. thermal
conductivity. As a result of this graph, we found that spray foam and rock wool are
significantly more expensive than any other type of insulation. For this reason, we
decided not to include spray foam in our later analysis of insulation types despite its low
thermal conductivity and resistance to moisture.

To further narrow down our insulation options, we weighted each of the criteria in
a final decision matrix. Their level of importance determined each individual criteria
weight. Cost was the most important factor to consider because size isn’t a constraint of
ours. If a much cheaper material has a worse thermal conductivity, we can simply add
more insulation rather than spend unnecessary amounts of money on expensive
insulation. Rice hulls and hay are much cheaper options than conventional insulation like
polyurethane and fiberglass. All of these types of insulations have similar thermal
conductivities, so the grading on that criteria is very similar. Durability is another
important factor, but not as important as cost or thermal conductivity. The durability of
polyurethane was much higher than all of the other insulations, because the other
materials may be affected by water vapor released during cooking. None of the insulation
types should pose a problem with our expected temperatures. The last factor we
considered in our weighted decision matrix is availability in Africa. This will make it
easier to manufacture and maintain because the materials will be readily available nearby.
It would also decrease the cost of insulation to use a material that is readily available.

Table 3.2: Final decision matrix for insulation type

Design Thermal
Cost Availability Durability Total
Criteria Conductivity
 20
Design
0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2
Concept
Rice Hull 100 40 90 27 100 10 50 10 87
PU 50 20 100 30 50 5 100 20 75
Fiberglass 55 22 95 28.5 50 5 75 15 70.5
Hay 100 40 95 28.5 80 8 50 10 86.5

Concluding from our insulation final decision matrix, we are planning on using a
readily available insulation in Uganda made from an organic material such as rice hulls or
hay rather than a common insulation such as fiberglass or polyurethane foam. While the
thermal resistance of the common insulation types was a little better, the cost of them was
significantly more. Since the cost of our product is much more important than the size,
we can use a slightly worse thermal conductivity that is much cheaper to achieve our
desired level of insulation.

3.1.2 - Loading Technique

Another customer requirement that we brainstormed off of was how we were

going to make the cooking pot easy to remove from our design. We did not want the user
to have difficulty inserting or removing their food, resulting in spilling or burning
themselves on the inside of the stove. We narrowed our ideas into another Pugh matrix to
look at which matched the criteria the best.

Table 3.3: Pugh matrix for loading technique

 21
As seen from Table 3.3, the datum we used was an oven style front load, the
design used for the previous insulated PV cooker. Many of our concepts could easily be
eliminated from this Pugh matrix. The pulley and lever method did not meet any of the
criteria better than our datum so both were eliminated. The techniques that best met our
criteria were the top load with a cinch cover, the pot into a closable bag, and the insulated
pot cover. These techniques were taken into consideration when we started ideating for
our overall design.

3.1.3 - Electrical system

In order to test the characteristics of our solar cooker we will need several
electrical components. An Arduino can be used as the microcontroller to communicate
with all of the electronics. A thermocouple that is attached to the coil will send the
temperature from the cooking element to the Arduino. An SD card attached to the
Arduino will keep record of the time, temperature, and voltage of the solar panel. We will
be able to use this data to test different insulators for the solar cooker. We are also going
to attach a relay module to the Arduino in series from the solar panel to the heating
element to shut off the heating element if it becomes too hot. Once a pot of water reaches
a boiling temperature of 100°C, the relay will shut off power to the heating element.
Figure 3.1 and 3.2 display the physical layout and connections of the electrical
components.

Figure 3.1: Breadboard diagram of testing equipment

 22

Figure 3.2: Schematic of testing components

3.1.4 - Energy storage

If our system is insulated well enough, we will have excess energy generated from
the PV panel. We considered adding an electrical storage system to our solar cooker, but
found that the additional cost of such system would put us over budget.

If feasible, the electrical storage system would be very easy to implement. We

would simply divert the energy to a charging circuit similar to the one shown below in
Figure 3.3, which is a charging circuit for lead-acid batteries. These are the most common
batteries for energy storage as well as some of the cheapest. Further testing could be done
to confirm which battery type would work best.
 23

Figure 3.3: Charging circuit for lead-acid batteries

The charging circuit will be capable of charging two 12V 7Ah lead-acid batteries.
The 1k potentiometer can be adjusted to set the desired current. We are able to calculate
the charging current by performing the following calculation: Charging current =
(1/10)*14Ah= 1.4mA. The input of three of the LM317 should be at least 15V to ensure
the proper voltage is provided to the charging circuit. A heat sink will be beneficial for
the LM317 since it will get hot.

3.1.5 - Overall designs

Our first design concept was a “hay-bale” cooker. This is the design that the
applied technologies class built and tested. As shown in Appendix B.1, the cooker
consisted of a hollowed out hay bale with a mud interior lining for sizing and structural
support. The heating element and pot are placed in opening and covered with a lid. A
second hay bale is placed over this for further insulation. Testing of this prototype
resulted in a can of beans being fully cooked over a period of 4 hours. Unfortunately, a
data logger was not used during testing so specific dataset is not available. Although we
do not know the specifics of this testing, it was a good assessment of the capabilities of
our other designs.

The second design concept was an adaption from the “wonderbag” style that was
introduced in the background section. This design is sketched in Appendix B.2. Our
altered design integrates a heating element into the bag so that it will heat the food from
room temperature and the maintain it at the desired cooking temperature. For this more
insulation, a heating element, a thermal storage unit, and a way to replace the insulation
would be required. The cloth interior will let water vapor from the food into the
insulation. This could potentially ruin certain insulations (i.e. rice hulls and hay) and they
would need to be replaced semi-frequently. There will be a zipper or other type of
fastener in order to replace insulation. We could also coat the inside of the bag with a
waterproof material and provide ventilation for the moisture released from the food
during cooking.
 24

Our third design, shown in the upper section of Appendix B.3, was a top loading,
barrel shaped cooker. Theoretically, the interior of the barrel will be hollowed out so that
a pot can fit snugly into. There are actually two designs here. One has a solid cylinder in
the interior for a customized pot. The other has an interior cylinder that is made of a
flexible material such as fabric so that any sized pot can be used. Insulation fills the space
between the interior and exterior sections. This interior section will also contain a thermal
storage block made with cement and a heating element. There were a few different
designs for the top of the cooker including an insulated lid and a cinch cover.

Our fourth design, shown in the lower section of Appendix B.3, was a side
loading, oven-style cooker. This design is very similar to a conventional household oven,
except with a much smaller interior section designed to fit a single pot. This also allows
for more room for insulation.

These four designs were put into a weighted decision matrix to help us decide on
the design that best satisfies our specifications. The criteria for the matrix was decided by
looking at the engineering specification we defined in Table 2.1. Most importantly we
wanted our design to be low cost so that they are affordable for people in third world
countries. We weighted this to be 25% of the overall decision. Heat loss, the ability to use
any reasonably sized pot (size versatility), and safety were also of concern. In order to
make food boil and stay simmering with such low power we need minimal heat loss so
this was weighted as 17% of our decision. Safety was weighted as 15% of our decision.
We did not want to have to manufacture a customized pot for our design, instead be able
to use any pot the user may already own. We weighted this at 13% because, although
important, we deemed it not as important as some of the other criteria. Ease of use,
manufacturability, and durability were all considered when looking at our design choices
as well.

Table 3.4: Final decision matrix

As you can see from Table 3.4, of our four overall design choices, the barrel with
lid and the insulated bag designs scored the highest. Because both scored similarly and
are for the most part simple designs, we have decided to go forth with both ideas. Both
designs will be relatively easy to build and test. Our most important criterion is cost so,
creating two functional prototypes is not beyond our project budget. A solid model of the
Barrel with Lid design is shown in Appendix B.4
We looked at the engineering specifications table to ensure both designs would fit
the characteristics well. First we analyzed the barrel and lid design. We were able to
 25
dismiss the weight and size of the barrel. Like any other design, the major cost is the
solar panel. In this design we expected the other materials to run approximately $100 or
less. Our power consumption of 100W would also remain the same. The insulated barrel
will be able to withstand an internal temperature of 100°C and an outer temperature of
56°C. Assembly of the insulated cooker should take less than two days with only two
people. The maintenance for this design would be minimal, mainly composed of
replacing insulation when it gets rotten from rain or spilled food. One person would
easily be able to operate the stove. The majority of the required materials for the insulated
barrel with a lid are readily available in Uganda except for some of the electrical
components which would require shipping to Uganda. The insulation for this design is
dependent on what is most readily available in the region where it is implemented

The other design was inspired from a device called the wonderbag, a device that
has great thermal properties. This design is the most compact of the two since it is just an
insulated bag. One of the benefits of this design is that it can be easily shipped and stored
if desired. We plan on inserting the heating element inside the thermal bag. The
electronics for this design would remain the same. The cost for this device would be
relatively low as well since all the materials are easily attainable and cheap. Since these
materials are readily available in Uganda, villagers could assemble stoves on-site. Similar
to the previous design, there would be minimal safety considerations for this design. The
only maintenance for this design would be for the electrical system and tearing of the
outer bag. Operation for this design is relatively simple and could easily be done by a
single person. Achieving boiling temperature in the desired time is dependent on the
insulation and size, which can easily be adjusted.

3.2 - Preliminary Prototyping/Testing

In order to prove that we have a valid concept a rough prototype was built and
tested. To simplify this, we used all store bought parts instead of fabricating any. Because
our design is so simple, it was easy to vary the geometry of different parts and still be
able to model our final design accurately. A brief cost analysis of all parts bought for this
prototype can be seen below in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Preliminary prototype cost analysis

 26

We already had the majority of these parts so there was not much additional cost
required to build our first prototype. Also, in our initial test we did not implement any
thermal storage or temperature sensing. Additional parts needed for this were discussed
in Section 3.1.4. A large plastic garbage bin was used as the outer container. This was
filled halfway with straw, which is what the inner cook chamber rested on. A 10-quart
steel pail bought from Home Depot was used for the inner cooking chamber. In order to
fit the 8” electric range burner we had to drill two holes in the side of the pail so that the
two burner terminals were protruding from the pail. This not only allowed the burner to
fit snuggly inside of the cook chamber but also made wiring and unwiring the burner
from the PV panel easy. Because our burner is rated for 2100W and 240V a resistance of
27.43 Ohms was calculated using Equation 1.

𝑅𝑅 = 𝑉𝑉 2 /𝑃𝑃 (1)
3 3 3 𝑅𝑅
𝑅𝑅𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = (𝑅𝑅 + 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑅𝑅)−1 = 9
(2)

This is much higher than our optimum resistance of 3.24 Ohms. Further analysis
of optimum resistance can be seen in Section 4.10.1. In order to lower the resistance of
the burner, we shorted it at the geometric thirds and rewired it to make it three separate
resistors in parallel. As you can see in Equation 2 this decreases the resistance by a factor
of 9 giving us a resistance of 3.04 Ohms. The modified burner can be seen in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Modified burner

Once the burner was modified to increase the power output, we wired it to the PV
panel using 16-gauge wire. Straw was then stuffed around the inner cook chamber to
insulate the sides. This can be seen in Figure 3.5.
 27

Figure 3.5: Top view of prototype

For our initial test, we wanted to get an idea of around how long it would take to
boil 1 liter of water on a sunny day. A K type thermocouple was attached to the pot to
measure the temperature of the water near the bottom of the pot. A tarp was then filled
with straw and placed over the pot to fill the rest of the bin with insulation. Temperature
measurements were taken every 5 minutes for 90 minutes. The corresponding graph can
be seen below in Figure 3.6. The slope of this figure should realistically be decaying over
time, however at these relatively low temperatures, our temperature vs. time curve is still
in a linear region.
 28

Figure 3.6: Preliminary testing temperature vs. time

Due to time and sunlight constraints, this test could not be completed and the
water was not brought to a boil. As you can see from the graph, the temperature increased
in a seemingly linear manner from its initial temperature of 67.2 °F to 171.6 °F. Using the
linear fit equation, we calculated a time to boil of about 115 minutes from an initial
temperature of 70°F. This is about 1.5 times longer than our initial analysis predicted.
There are several explanations to this difference. Our analysis is for a steady state system
with no convection so it is not an accurate model of what is happening inside of the oven.
Also, the thermal conductivity of the straw used in our analysis was 0.06 W/m*K, a value
found through an experiment conducted by Shaw.This could be an inaccurate value for
the insulation we used based on the actual material and how densely it was packed.

One thing that was observed when taking the pot out after being heated is that the
steel pail used for the inner cooking chamber was very hot. Lots of energy was being
conducted to the pail because it is in direct contact with the burner. In order to solve this
issue for our second prototype we have decided to pick a material with a lower thermal
conductivity as well as mounting the burner differently inside of the cooking chamber.
This will greatly decrease the amount of energy going into heating the inner cooking
chamber and focus the energy on the pot containing food.
 29
Chapter 4 - Description of the Final Design

4.1 - Overall Description

Figure 4.1: Overall design

Our overall design can be seen in Figure 4.1. Our design is very similar to the
prototype we built, but is larger and has more features to make the design user-friendly
and robust. The design consists of five main parts, which are generally described in this
section and further laid out in the Detailed Design section. The five main parts of our
design include:

1. Base
2. Outer cylinder
3. Inner cook chamber
4. Lid
5. Electrical system
 30
The oven is designed so that one person can cook food throughout the day. The
user will add food in a pot to the inner cooking chamber at the beginning of the day, then
slowly simmer the food until it is cooked. Our oven will not cook food quickly, but will
allow the user to cook food with a minimal amount of attention after the food has begun
cooking. With its simple, yet robust design, there will be little maintenance required for
use. We hoped that its ease-of-use and durability will help influence Ugandan locals to
fully implement it into their daily lives, solving the problem of inefficient cooking in
Uganda.

4.2 - Base

Figure 4.2: Base rendering

4.2.1 - Function

The base of our design was meant to stay in the user's home permanently. It adds
structural support to the outer cylinder and has a stand for the inner cook chamber so that
it doesn’t have to rest on insulation. This will decrease the risk of the inner chamber
falling over. The base plate also protects the insulation from any rain runoff that may
occur during the wet season in Uganda. A rubber tube will be wrapped around the bottom
edge for safety purposes.
 31
4.2.2 - Components (material selection, tolerancing, etc.)

Base plate:
The main purpose of the base plate is to keep the inner insulation from being
destroyed. It also gives the entire oven support because its diameter is wider than that of
the oven. To minimize rusting, we chose 22-gauge galvanized steel sheet metal. Ideally
this part would be thicker to give it more structure and weight. The only tolerance put on
this part is a minimum diameter equal to the diameter of the outer cylinder. Having a
larger diameter will only add more support. A detailed drawing of this part can be seen in
Appendix C.1.

Cooking chamber supports:

Since these will be protected from the rain we do not have to spend extra money
on galvanized or stainless steel. Rebar is very cheap and easy to work with so we chose to
use ½” steel rebar. This will lower costs, make it easy to manufacture, and ensure that we
will be able to get all of our materials in Uganda. The way these parts are designed makes
them still functional if they differ in lengths and angle welded. The cooking chamber will
still be able to be placed on the supports if they are different lengths. A detailed drawing
of this part can be seen in Appendix C.1.1.

Outer cylinder supports:

This part must be able to be rolled and cut fairly easily so we selected 22-gauge
galvanized steel sheet metal. This will protect it from rust as well. Holes must be located
on the part so that once it is rolled into a cylinder it can be riveted easily. The length and
height can vary by a few inches as long as its radius is larger than that of the outer
cylinder. A detailed drawing of this part can be seen in Appendix C.1.2 and Appendix
C.1.2

4.2.3 - Manufacturing

● Cut a 30-inch diameter circle from a sheet of 22-gauge galvanized steel

● Weld 3, 16-inch long pieces of rebar to this base plate
○ The base of these pieces of rebar should be 2.5 inches from the center of
the base while the top of the rebar should be 4.5 inches from the center
(radially). At this angle the interior-cooking chamber will rest on the
rebar.
● Using a shear, oxy acetylene torch, or a press punch (whichever is readily
available) cut a sheet of 22 gauge galvanized steel that is 96 inches by 6 inches
○ Punch 3 holes along the short edges of this sheet
■ The center of these holes will be 1.5 inches apart, and 1.5 inches
from the edge of the sheet
○ Roll the sheet into a 28.66-inch diameter cylinder using a sheet metal
roller, the holes should line up at this dimension
○ Rivet the hole to hold the cylinder in place
● Weld the cylinder to the base plate
 32
● The outer cylinder below will fit into this base and be supported by it

*Drawings with dimensions can be found in Appendix C.1

4.3 - Outer Cylinder

Figure 4.3: Outer cylinder rendering

4.3.1 - Function

The outer cylinder is what contains the insulation around the inner cooking
chamber. It is lifted over the base and slid into the wider cylinder that is attached to the
base. This will keep it from tipping over or sliding around when in use. We designed the
outer cylinder to be light enough to be lifted using the handles so that the user can bring it
outside or anywhere else in the house that they may want to temporarily use it. Without
the base it will still stand, but will not be as sturdy so we do not intend users to
permanently use the oven without the base. As you can see from Figure 4.3 we added a
vent attached to the outer cylinder that connects to the inner cook chamber so that
moisture does not build up in the cooking chamber. Trapping moisture in the cooking
chamber would cause the insulation directly above the chamber to rot quickly. The
addition of a vent was necessary even though heat will be lost through it. The hole
directly below the vent is for the wiring from the PV to the burner. This keeps the wire
out of the way when opening and closing the lid of the oven. To prevent wire fray and
cutting, a rubber grommet will be added to the hole. Also, to decrease the risk of injury,
rubber tubing will be cut and wrapped around the top edge of the outer cylinder. This will
 33
take the risk of someone cutting their hand on top of the oven as well as protect users
from the pinch point between the lid and outer cylinder when closing the oven.

4.3.2 - Components

Cylinder:
The cylinder is the main component of this part of our design. It will be made of
the same material, 22-gauge galvanized steel sheet metal, as the base support for the
cylinder. This will allow us to roll then rivet the sheet metal easily in the same way that
the base support was rolled. We were worried about the steel being too heavy for
someone to lift so we chose the gauge of sheet metal based off of what its total weight
would be after it is cut. With 22-gauge sheet metal this part would weigh around 26 lbs.
not including the handles and vent. This is light enough for the user to be able to move
this part of the oven fairly easily. We chose galvanized steel to prevent rusting as well. A
detailed drawing of this component can be seen in Appendix C.2.1 and Appendix C.2.2.

Handles:
The handles are an important part of the outer cylinder because it allows the user
to pick up the oven more easily in order to move it or replace the insulation. To decrease
cost and ensure that we will be able to get the materials in Uganda we are going to use ½”
rebar that will be bent and welded onto the sides. This is the same material used for the
inner cooking chamber base supports so this minimizes the number of materials we
would have to order.

Vent:
The vent will be inserted into the inner cooking chamber so it will need to
withstand higher heat than conventional PVC pipe can withstand. We chose 1” CPVC
pipe so that it can withstand higher temperatures without melting. CPVC is also more
corrosion resistant than conventional PVC. This is important because it will be in contact
with water vapor while in use.
The U-bolt is a part that will be bought off of McMaster Carr to decrease the
amount of custom fabrication required. It is a 1-⅜” zinc-plated U-bolt. The zinc plating
will reduce corrosion. It is sized so that it can accommodate 1” CPVC pipe easily without
being perfectly aligned.

4.3.3 – Manufacturing

● The shell of this cylinder will be made from a 22-gauge galvanized steel sheet
○ Take a sheet of 22-gauge galvanized steel that is 96 inches by 30 inches
○ Punch 7 holes along the short edges of this sheet
■ The holes will be 4 inches apart, and 4 inches from the edge of the
sheet
■ The end holes should be 3 inches from the top and bottom edge
○ Punch a 1.5-inch diameter hole in the center of the sheet, 9 inches from the
top edge
 34
○ Punch a 0.5-inch diameter hole in the center of the sheet, 12 inches from
the bottom edge
■ This hole will be for the wires from the PV panel to the burner
○ Punch 2 0.25-inch holes 4 inches from the top edge of the sheet. These
holes should be 1 inch apart, centered at the middle of the sheet.
■ The distance between these holes is more important than the
position
■ These holes will be used to fasten the U-bolt to the shell
○ Wrap this sheet into a 27-inch diameter cylinder. The edge holes should
align
○ Rivet the holes to hold this sheet metal in the cylinder shape
○ Insert the CPVC piping and CPVC elbow through the ventilation hole
○ Fasten the U-bolt around the CPVC to hold it in place
○ Bend 2, 8-inch-long piece of ½ inch rebar on both ends, 1.5 inches from
the ends
■ Weld this rebar to the sides of the steel shell, 4 inches from the top

*Drawings with dimensions can be found in Appendix C.2

4.4 - Inner Cooking Chamber

Figure 4.4: Inner cooking chamber rendering

4.4.1 – Function

Figure 4.4 shows the inner cooking chamber with the burner inside of it and
ventilation protruding. The pot of food will be placed inside this during heating. The cook
chamber will be a handmade part out of a material with low thermal conductivity such as
clay, ceramic, or mud bricks. This will reduce the heat lost to the inner chamber walls.
We designed the supports on the base so that the inner cooking chamber can have very
broad tolerances and still be supported well. The main constraint that must be met is the
bottom diameter must fit the burner. The holes at the bottom of the chamber are for the
 35
wiring to the burner. Because it will not be made of metal like the outer cylinder, rubber
grommets are not required for these holes.

4.4.2 – Components

Burner:
There are several different options that we have for burners. Conventional electric
range burners have too high of a resistance which would greatly decrease our power
(further analysis in Section 4.8.1). To lower resistance we can modify the burner so that it
is three resistors in parallel, which would decrease resistance by a factor of 9.

Cook Chamber:
The cooking chamber will be either a bought or handmade part. It will be made of
a ceramic, clay, or mud material depending on what’s most readily available. These
materials have a lower thermal conductivity than metals so that less heat is dissipated to
the insulation directly below the burner. This will also focus more of the burner’s energy
on the pot and food. The chamber must be able to accommodate the burner and vent. To
do this the bottom diameter must be large enough and three holes must be drilled in it.

4.4.3 - Manufacturing

The manufacture of this part really depends on what is available in Uganda. Ideally, the
part would be made from a hard material with a low thermal conductivity as stated above.
The ideal choice would be to buy clay or ceramic pots of a similar size if that is possible.
If not, the next option would be to make a pot from ceramics, clay, or mud bricks. If
neither of those options are possible in Uganda or our manufacturing facility, there then a
tin bucket would need to be purchased to use for the structure of this part and an
insulating plate will be placed inside under the burner to help direct heat upwards into the
pot and food rather than down into the cooking chamber and structural supports.

Once a “cooking chamber” has been decided on from the available resources in Uganda,
a 1.5-inch hole will be made near the top for the CPVC ventilation. A 0.75-inch hole will
be made 0.5 inches from the bottom for the wires to run through. The burner will be
placed in the bottom of this chamber. If this part ends up being made from a highly
thermal conductive material a ceramic plate the same size, as the bottom will be under the
burner.

*Drawings with dimensions can be found in Appendix C.3.

**The dimensions for this part are arbitrary because the pot used for manufacturing in
Uganda may differ from the one we designed.
 36
4.5 - Lid

Figure 4.5: Lid rendering

4.5.1 – Function

The lid sits on top of the outer cylinder while the oven is in use, protecting the
inner cooking chamber and insulation. Underneath the lid, more insulation is attached so
that when you close it the top of the cooking chamber is insulated. This makes it so the
user does not have to pack insulation over the pot every time they insert or remove a pot.
The casing for the insulation is made of ¼” chicken wire so that insulation doesn’t fall
into the cooking chamber, creating a fire hazard. A handle was added on top of the lid to
make closing and opening the oven easy. So the lid isn’t put on the ground when taken
off, a hook was attached so that the lid can be hooked onto the one of the handles on the
side of the outer cylinder. This will increase the life of the lid and insulation underneath
it.
4.5.2 – Components

Top:
The top of the lid will be made of 15/32” treated plywood. This material is cheap
and sturdy enough to withstand the loads that will be put on the lid. It is important for the
lid to be water and corrosion resistant due to the wet season in Uganda so treated
plywood was our best option with greatly increasing price and weight. The top is just a
circle that must have a minimum diameter of half an inch more than the outer cylinder’s
diameter. In order to attach the chicken wire insulation holder underneath it, 8 series of
two holes must be drilled around the perimeter of the top. This will allow the
manufacturer to simply zip tie the chicken wire underneath the top. Holes must also be
drilled in the top for the hook and handle. A detailed design of this component can be
seen in Appendix C.4.1
 37
Handle:
The handle is a purchased part off of McMaster Carr. It is a stamped stainless
steel part, which will be strong enough to withstand the load of lifting the lid as well as
not rust in the rain. A detailed drawing of the handle can be seen in Appendix C.4.2. The
handle will be fastened using 2 stainless steel hex nuts and bolts with stainless steel
washers on the underside of the lid to disperse load. The bolts are M10 bolts that are
30mm long. These are the same bolts that will be used on the hook, which is discussed
next. Detailed drawings of the nuts, bolts, and washers can be seen in Appendix C.4.4 -
C.4.6

Hook:
The hook selected will also be purchased off of McMaster Carr. It is a zinc plated
steel hook with a 5” projection. This will prevent corrosion and give us enough hook
space to easily be able to attach the lid to the handle of the outer cylinder. A detailed
drawing of the hook can be seen in Appendix C.4.3. The hook will be attached using the
same nuts, bolts, and washers as the handle.

Insulation holder:
¼” mesh chicken wire will be used for the insulation holder. This material is very
easy to manipulate so it can be hand rolled into the cylindrical shape we have designed. It
can also be cut very easily which helps with ease of manufacturing. The mesh chosen is
small enough to hold the insulation without it dropping into the cooking chamber.

Zip ties:
In order to keep costs down, the mesh will be zip-tied to the lid. These will not be
under much load so the zip-ties should not fail.

4.5.3 - Manufacturing

Manufacturing the lid of our solar cooker.

● Cut out a 29-inch diameter circle from a sheet of 15/32 inch treated plywood
○ Drill 8 sets of 2 0.25 inch holes around the perimeter of the circle
■ Each individual set of holes should be 0.5 inches apart
■ The sets are positioned 45 degrees in relation to each other
■ These will be used to fasten the insulation support to the lid
○ Across the diameter of the circle, drill 2, 0.25-inch holes, 5.75 inches apart
■ The center of the circle should between these two holes
■ These will be used to fasten the handle to the lid
■ The distance between the holes is more important that the position.
○ Fasten the handle to the lid using 2 M10 bolts, nuts, and washers
○ Drill 2 more holes along the edge of the circle
■ These holes will be 1 inch apart with the outside hole 0.75 inches
from the perimeter.
■ The distance between the holes is more important that the position.
○ Fasten the lid hook to the lid using 2 M10 bolts, nuts, and washers
 38
● Cut a 90 inch by 8.5-inch rectangle out of 0.25-inch chicken wire
○ Wrap the chicken wire into a 27-inch diameter by 8.5-inch height cylinder
■ Use zip ties to fasten the chicken wire to itself in this shape
● Cut a 27-inch diameter circle out of 0.25-inch chicken wire
○ Fasten this circle to one end of the cylinder using zip ties
● Fill this cylinder with insulation
● Fasten the cylinder to the lid with 8 zip ties through the perimeter holes

*Drawings with dimensions can be found in Appendix C.4

4.6 - Electrical System

In order to ensure that the coil does not overheat, we designed an electrical system
to turn off the coil when it reaches a set temperature. The system consists of an Arduino
that is connected to a thermocouple and also connected to a relay. The schematic in
Figure 4.6 is shown below. The thermocouple will be installed by wrapping it around the
heating element to ensure a proper temperature is read. This toggle temperature will be
100 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the combustion temperature of the insulation The
relay will be connected in series on the positive lead of the solar panel output.

Figure 4.6: Electrical system

Another safety mechanism that we could implement instead of the selected

electronics is a bimetal temperature switch which will automatically open the circuit at a
defined temperature.
 39

4.7 - Cost Analysis

Table 4.1 below shows the itemized list of material costs. Some parts will be
manufactured in-house, while others will be bought. The parts that will be manufactured
are the base plate, outer and inner supports, outer container, inner cooking container, top
lid, and the lid insulation container. All other parts, fasteners, and electronic equipment
will be purchased. As you can see from the table the final material cost of our design is
$116.79. This does not include the cost of manufacturing, labor, and overhead. If we
were to manufacture our design on a larger scale we could buy materials in bulk and
decrease our total materials cost so price would most likely even out to around $100,
which was the specification we set initially.

Table 4.1: Cost analysis

Part Material Price Quantity Total
[$/unit [ft],[ft^2],
- - length] piece [$]
Parts
Base Plate 22 ga. galvanized steel sheet metal $1.94 3.8 $7.35
Outer Cylinder Support 22 ga. galvanized steel sheet metal $1.94 4.59 $8.88
Inner Cylinder Support 1/2" rebar $0.22 4 $0.89
Outer Container 22 ga. galvanized steel sheet metal $1.94 18.75 $36.28
Inner Cook Chamber Ceramic/clay/mud 1 $0.00
Lid Top 15/32" treated plywood $0.84 7.6 $6.36
Insulation Holder on lid 1/4" chicken wire $0.90 10.5 $9.42
Outer Container Handle 1/2" rebar $0.22 1.33 $0.30
Lid Handle Stamped stainless steel $6.00 1 $6.00
Hook Zinc plated steel hook $4.80 1 $4.80
Vent 1" CPVC $1.91 1.67 $3.19
Vent Elbow 1" CPVC elbow $2.47 1 $2.47
Rubber Tubing 1/2" rubber pipe insulation $0.63 15.2 $9.50
Rubber Grommet 3/4" rubber grommet $0.14 1 $0.14
Fasteners
Rivets 1/4" stainless steel rivets $0.50 10 $4.96
U-bolt 1-3/8" zinc plated $1.30 1 $1.30
Zip ties 8" plastic zip ties $0.02 16 $0.32
Bolts M10 30mm stainless steel hex bolts $0.73 4 $2.93
Nuts M10 stainless steel hex nuts $0.39 4 $1.57
Washers M10 stainless steel flat washer $0.12 4 $0.49
Electronics
Adjustable knob temperature
control $9.65 1 $9.65
Ibutton Borrowing data logger N/A 5 N/A
Burner 6" electric range burner $10 1 $10.00
16 gauge wire 16 ga. insulated wire $0.30 10 $3.00
PV Connectors Plastic $1.43 1 $1.43
Total $116.79
 40
4.8 - Assembly
Some assembly will be required once it is manufactured. If there is no insulation
at hand in the manufacturing facility, then the user must use their choice of insulation for
the lid and zip tie it shut. This process is the same for the user as it would be for the
manufacturer, so this process can be seen again in Section 4.5.3. Other than that all
assembly instructions are below:

1. Place base where you will cook the majority of the time
2. Lift outer cylinder over base and slide it inside of the cylinder welded to the base
3. Densely pack the outer cylinder with straw (or any other form of insulation at
hand) until it is up to the wire hole
4. Place inner cooking chamber on the stand inside the cylinder
5. Put PVC pipe vent into inner cooking chamber hole and attach the other end to
the elbow
6. Thread wires through the wiring hole and connect them to the connectors on the
electronics box.
7. Fill the rest of the space with insulation until it is level with the top of the inner
cooking chamber
8. Place lid on top

4.9 - Maintenance

The main worry regarding maintenance is the failure of the electrical system. In
order to decrease the likeliness of failure we designed the electrical system to be as
simple as possible. If, after testing, we conclude that an Arduino data logger is not
necessary we can always use a bimetal switch that is only one small part. This will be less
likely to be tampered with too.
Maintenance may need to be done on the insulation in order to keep it from
rotting. Further testing must be done to figure out how often this maintenance will occur,
but it will most likely need to be changed during the wet season. We designed the oven to
protect the insulation as well as possible and also to make changing out the insulation
easy. The user will have to cut the zip ties on the bottom part of the chicken wire
underneath the lid to get the insulation out. Once removed, they can pack new insulation
and zip-tie it together.

4.10 - Engineering Analysis

4.10.1 - Optimum Resistance

We measured the resistance of the burner and found that it was 27.4 ohms. This
would consume 740.74mA. At this current, the burner would take a couple hours to bring
water to a boil. In order to maximize the power output from our heating element, we
 41
calculated an optimum resistance using two methods. The first involved using the
“Electrical Characteristics” graph given by Eco-Worthy, the manufacturer of the solar
panel. As seen in Figure 4.7, the power curve given by the manufacturer can be analyzed
graphically in order to calculate an optimum resistance.

Figure 4.7: Power curve of PV panel

The power is maximized at the point chosen in the Figure 4.7. The current and
voltage was obtained from a point on the graph and the optimum resistance of 3.05 Ohms
was calculated by equation (4.1).

𝑉𝑉 18 𝑉𝑉
𝑅𝑅 = 𝐼𝐼
= 5.9 𝐴𝐴 = 3.05Ω (4.1)

Another method was used to calculate an optimum resistance. As seen in Figure

4.8, by modeling the PV panel as a voltage source with a resistance and our burner as a
single resistor attached in series to the PV panel you can easily calculate when the load
resistance optimizes power.

Figure 4.8: PV simple electrical model

This circuit is then analyzed and found that power is maximum when Rs = RL.
This analysis can be seen in the below equations.
 42

In Equation (4.5), the load resistance is calculated which, according to Equation

(4.2), needs to be maximized to maximize power. Equation (4.6) differentiates the
denominator of Equation (4.5) to find the minimum. This will maximize the load
resistance. As you can see from Equation (4.7) the maximum load resistance is when it is
equal to the source resistance. To find the source resistance, we took maximum power
characteristics of our solar panel, which were given by Eco-Worthy. This calculation can
be seen in Equation (4.8) below.

An optimum resistance of 3.24 Ohms was calculated using this method that is
very close to what we calculated using the graphical method. In order to maximize power
input, we will plan on using a burner somewhere in between these two values. These
values are based on perfect solar insolation; with our conditions the resistance will need
to be slightly higher than this to maximize efficiency.
 43

Figure 4.9: Standard solar panel power curve. The operating points for each curve
at its optimized resistance are indicated with black open circles while the operating
points of each curve at our chosen resistance are highlighted by red dots. Power is
equal to the area of an inscribed rectangle defined by the operating points

Figure 4.9 illustrates a typical voltage/current (V-I) curve (solid) for a solar panel
under full solar insolation such as a solar panel directly facing the sun at noon. However,
when the sunlight is not perpendicular, received solar intensity drops, resulting in a
decrease of electrical current. The blue curve illustrates the approximate power output for
8 AM or 4 PM for the same “noon facing” solar panel, corresponding to a 50% reduction
in solar intensity. This approximation is only correct for equinox and overestimates the
intensity by neglecting the increased amount of atmosphere the sunlight must travel
through, although this is a reasonable approximation to illustrate the concept. V-I curves
for the entire day between 8 AM and 4 PM fall between the two solid curves. The
delivered power (the area of the shaded inscribed rectangle) depends on the operating
point on the curve, defined by the intersection of the curve with the I = V/R line of the
resistor (straight lines shown in black, red, and blue for increasing resistances - in
practice, the resistance will increase with increased temperature, which would increase
with increased power, so the lines will not be straight, but have a slight downward
curvature. The straight-line approximation serves to illustrate the concept). Thus the
resistance of the heating element is crucial to maximize the delivered power. The
resistance that maximizes noon sunlight is lower than the resistance that maximizes
8AM/4PM sunlight. A resistance that optimizes the delivered power throughout the day
will strike a compromise between the 2 solid curves. The resistance that optimizes power
for 10 AM/2 PM sunlight at 87% of the maximum solar intensity will likely optimized
the system over the course of the entire day.
 44
4.10.2 - Heat Transfer Analysis

We have performed a steady-state heat transfer analysis on a model of our design.

The cooker is modeled as a cylinder with a hollow center and ventilation. A 1-
Dimensional heat transfer in the radial direction was calculated at steady state to
determine the heat loss with different insulation types and sizes. This calculation can be
seen in Appendix D. The model is assumed to have an internal temperature of 100 °C
(the boiling temperature of water) and an external temperature of 25 °C. All sizes are
estimates, and can be changed depending on necessary insulation and packaging
constraints. These sizes, as well as thermal conductivities, and temperature differences
can be adjusted in the excel sheet. Our heat transfer calculations tell us how much heat
(in Watts) will be theoretically lost through the insulation and thus is the minimum heat
required to boil at steady state.

We took the sizes and chosen insulation to model this heat transfer in a finite
element analysis (FEA) for our final design. The model is shown in Figure 4.10 and
analyzes the insulation for the cooker. The interior cylinder is held at a constant
temperature of 100°C to simulate boiling water while the outside edge is subject to
natural convection at 25°C and a convection coefficient of 25 W/m2K. The bottom of the
interior section models the burner where 100W of power is introduced to the system from
the solar panel. This FEA model shows a very high temperature region just below the
burner. We decided to add extra insulation of a non-flammable material (such as clay or
ceramics) below the burner to help prevent the straw below the burner from getting this
hot because it’s combustion is less than is shown in our FEA model. We don’t expect the
solar cooker to ever actually get this hot though for a number of reasons. This model is at
steady state which means it has been running for an infinite amount of time. Our cooker
will run a maximum of 12-14 hours per day simply based on the hours of sunlight. Also,
during the time that the cooking is running, we will not always be getting 100W of power
out of the PV panel. Full power will only be received during peak hours of the day
around, 11am-3pm. For the remainder of the day, the power output will be based on the
amount of incident light received by the PV. Other factors will come into play as well
regarding the power output of the solar panel including the weather on a given day and
the presence of dust, pollution, and other particles in the air.
 45

Figure 4.10: FEA heat transfer model

4.10.3 - Transient Thermal Modeling

Transient modeling requires a computer mesh analysis and iteration at every point
of the insulation. However, it may be more instrumental to use a simplified
cylindrical model to represent our system. We use the thermal resistance equation
(eq. 4.9) where P is the rate of heat loss; is the difference in temperature between
the inner and outer surface; and R is the thermal resistance.
(4.9)
∆𝑇𝑇
𝑃𝑃 =
𝑅𝑅
We model the heat flowing through the insulation in three sections: The cylindrical
wall and the two discs above and below the cooking chamber (Fig. 4.11). The
cylinder is approximated as a section from an infinitely long cylinder yielding a
resistance of:
(4.10)
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑟𝑟2 /𝑟𝑟1 )
𝑅𝑅 =
2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
 46
where r1 is the inner radius of the insulation; r2 is the outer radius; R is the total
thermal resistance; λ is the thermal conductivity of insulation material, and L is the
length of the cylinder.

Figure 4.11: Cylindrical geometry for heat loss analysis

Similarly, we can estimate the insulation end pieces as solid disks of radius r2 and
thickness l, which we set equal to the cylindrical wall thickness (r2 - r1), yielding the
resistance,
(4.11)
𝑟𝑟2 − 𝑟𝑟1
𝑅𝑅 =
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝑟𝑟22

Thermal resistances are added by taking the inverse of the sum of the inverses. The
three sections of insulation combine to give a total thermal resistance of 0.213 K/W,
with an inner radius of 0.1778 m, an outer radius of 0.2875 m, and estimated
thermal conductivity of 0.06 W/m-K for straw. These equations are used to calculate
the rate of heat loss (eq. 4.9).

Heating
Our computer model calculates the temperature of the chamber every minute,
assuming uniform temperature of the contents and of the outside environment.

The amount of energy present in the system is used to find the difference in
temperature between the inside and outside of the insulation. By subtracting the
heat loss (eq. 4.9) from the power provided by the solar panel, the amount of energy
is updated to the next time increment:
(4.12)
𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛 = 𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛−1 + (𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ) × 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

Where En represents the energy in the chamber at a certain moment in time; En-1
represents the energy at the previous timestep; Pin is the power received from the
 47
solar panel; Ploss is the heat loss rate (4.9); and tstep is the time between calculations.
∆T is found from the equation 4.13.
(4.13)
𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚∆𝑇𝑇
Manipulating equation 4.13 to further suit our model, we can solve for the
temperature change using equation 4.14,
(4.14)
𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛
∆𝑇𝑇 =
(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)ℎ20 + (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

where En is the total energy from equation 4.12; m is the mass; and C is the specific
heat. The denominator is separated into 2 parts, one for the water that is being
heated, and another for various other masses that are present in the system. These
include potential thermal storage, the pot, and any interior structure of the cooker.
This model will be used later on to compare our results during testing.

4.11 - Safety Considerations

Safety is very important in the implementation of photovoltaic cookers in Africa.
One of the main reasons for this project was to increase the safety of cooking; we need to
ensure that our method is much safer than previous methods. Since we have removed the
harmful emissions from conventional cooking methods, it should already be relatively
safe, however there are some other safety factors to consider now.

One safety consideration is the combustion of our insulation. As shown in Figure

4.10 above, there is a hot region just below the electric burner. This region in our steady
state model is at a higher temperature than the combustion temperature of many of our
possible insulated materials such as straw and rice hulls. Obviously the temperatures
shown in the figure are exaggerated because they imply that 100W of power will be
heating the cooker at all times and it does not take into account that it will cool down
overnight. In case the interior temperatures below the burner still do reach near
combustion temperatures, we plan on using a non-flammable insulation directly below
the burner such as ceramics, clay or mud bricks in order to dissipate some of the heat
before it reaches the bulk of the flammable insulation. Additionally, a thermocouple
controller or temperature dependent switch will be implemented below the burner. This
controller will turn off the power from the PV to the burner or simply open the circuit so
no power is provided and the temperature of the insulation will be allowed to decrease.
During normal use of the cooker this should not be an issue because the water boiling
will keep the interior temperatures near 100℃ . If left on with no water inside the cooking
chamber however this could quickly become a safety hazard.

A second safety issue to consider was the pinch points along the top edge of the
cooker’s shell. The shell is made from 22-gauge sheet metal (0.034 inches thick) and the
lid placed on this shell is less than 15 pounds. The weight of the lid also does not include
 48
any water weight absorbed from evaporation of the boiling water inside of the cooking
chamber. If a finger gets caught between the lid and shell while placing (or removing) the
lid on the cooker the weight combined with the sharp edge of the shell could easily cut it.
To combat this issue, we added rubber tubing along the top edge of the shell.

A third issue we considered was removal of the pot after cooking. This pot will
contain food still at or close to 100℃
because the food inside has been simmering. It is
important that the user can remove the pot without burning themselves. We explore a
number of options to prevent burns including different handles and a device to remove
the pot with. Ultimately we decided that the most reasonable way to fix this issue was to
simply have the user wear oven mitts or let the pot cool to a temperature that will not
burn them before removing. Currently people in 3rd world countries are cooking over a
3-stone fire. The handles from the pot will be significantly hotter in their method than
ours anyways and they already can remove the pots from the fire without burning
themselves. It would not be cost effective for us to implement a method of removal of a
hot pot when a cheaper alternative is available.

Our final safety consideration was the fraying of the wires from the PV to the burner.
These wires are threaded through a fairly small hole in our sheet metal shell. Similar to
the pinch points discussed above, we aim to prevent the wires from being cut by this
sharp edge. A rubber grommet is inserted into the wire hole in order to prevent wire
fraying at the contact point with the outer cylinder.

The final DFMEA analysis of safety and failure modes can be seen in Appendix F
 49
Chapter 5 - Product Realization

5.1 - Developing World Design

Upon completion of our previously stated design, we realized that it was much too
expensive for our third world application. It would be more effective to create a cooking
unit that is much simpler and be able to implement more of them with the money we had.
The only necessary components are a solar panel, insulation, and a heating element. The
solar panel and insulation are already as cheap as they can possibly be (unless solar
panels are donated), however the heating element can be made cheaply, and the structure
of the cooking unit is unnecessarily robust. Our prototype greatly differs from the
previous design to lower our costs and will be shown in the section below.

5.2 - Manufacturing Process

5.2.1 - Custom Heating Element

A heating element is simply a resistor. We had previously planned on purchasing

traditional stove top heating elements, but it could be much cheaper and more efficient to
build them ourselves. This allowed the flexibility to choose resistance and shape as well.
We used 26-gauge Nickel-Chromium (NiCr) wire (which has a standard resistance of
2.67 ohms/foot) immersed in a concrete tile ½” thick. The left portion of Figure 5.1
shows the wire woven into our mold. The right side of Figure 5.1 shows two finished
burners. Note, wires should be clamped together rather than soldered because the solder
will melt during burner use.

Figure 5.1: Nickel-Chromium Heating Elements. Resistive Nickel Chromium wires

are held into place in a mold (left). After concrete hardens, the finished heaters can
be used (right).
 50

5.2.2 - Outside Structure

The structure to hold our insulation proved to be the most expensive portion of the
previous model. We deemed this system to be unnecessary as it’s only functionality could
be done in a much cheaper way. We decided to build a cooker that was partially
underground and above, with the idea stemming from videos depicting Ugandan cooking
mostly on the ground in the Baganda and Soroti communities. The following figures
show the manufacturing process of this design:

Figure 5.2: The first step was digging a hole which was approximately 3 ft. by 3 ft.
and 12 inches deep. Basically, the hole should allow 10 inches of insulation on all
sides of the pot, which is the minimum insulation for the desired thermal resistance.
The sides of the hole were supported by mud/clay.

Figure 5.3: The dirt from the hole was used to make bricks by mixing mud and
straw with a 1:1 ratio. We made a fixture made from plywood and 2x4 to compact
and form the mixture into bricks. They were then cut using a saw to roughly 8 inch
sections. The bricks were laid out and stacked around the hole so that the total
height of the cooker was about 2 feet.
 51

Figure 5.4: To make a countertop, we cut a hole in the middle of a piece of plywood
and added two more holes to allow space for the hands to reach into the cooker.
The top surface of the plywood was then covered with a wire mesh. A thin layer of
cement and sand mixture was spread on the top surface of the counter. We
smoothed and textured the top surface by spraying water and flattening the surface
with a trowel.

A thin sheet of aluminum can be rolled into a cylinder and lowered into the structure to
make an inner cooking chamber and prevent the insulation from falling into this area.
 52

Figure 5.5: Solidworks model of this design

 53
Chapter 6 - Design Verification
6.1 - Testing Plan
In order to test the performance of our prototype, we planned on performing
multiple tests. We wanted to perform several experiments at known power inputs so that
these tests were repeatable to test different geometries and insulation types if needed. We
also wanted to do several real time tests using a solar power.

6.1.1 - Repeatable Testing

To ensure that this testing is in fact repeatable, we will have to use a constant
100W power supply. This eliminates the possibility of fluctuations in power like we
would have using the solar panel. The power source, supplied by Cal Poly, will be
attached to our heating element as if it were the solar panel. 1 L of room temperature
water will be added to a pot and placed in the cooking chamber. Thermocouples will be
attached to the burner, under the cooking chamber in insulation, and inside the water in
the pot. The burner will then be turned on and temperature measurements will be taken
every minute from all three thermocouples. This experiment will be done inside to
decrease the amount of forced convection occurring on the outer cylinder. The water will
be brought to a boil, simmered for 5 minutes, then the burner will be cut off and
temperature will be taken until the water cools off to around 100°F. We will do these
constant power supply tests using 100W, 75W, and 50W.

6.1.2 - Real-Time Testing

We also want to test the oven under realistic condition so we will do testing using
the solar panel. This testing will be the same as the repeatable tests with a few additional
measurements. We will measure current and voltage so that we can calculate power. We
will also use a solar incidence meter so we can further understand what kind of power we
can get out of our PV panel in different types of sunlight. These tests will be done at
different times of the day and in different cloud coverage’s so we can have a wide range
of data.

6.2 – Testing
Power supply equipment could not be obtained for the repeatable testing at
specific powers so these experiments were never carried out. Although this part of the
testing was incomplete, we deemed our prototype’s performance sufficient through the
real-time testing that was completed. This consisted of several different experiments with
and without food.
The first experiment consisted of boiling 4 liters of water using a 3.4 ohm burner.
This burner was used because we were considering the average maximum power per day
 54
obtained from the PV panel rather than the peak maximum power we can achieve from
the solar panel; therefore, we needed a higher resistance. This was explained in more
detail in Section 4.10.1. The results are shown below.

Figure 6.1: Test #1

We started our test around 11:00 am and ended a little over 5 hours of testing.
Using a watt meter, the cooker varied between 60-70 watts of electrical input power. For
every minute the water would warm up about a quarter of a Fahrenheit, which is
acceptable considering that we are using a 100 W solar panel to warm up 4 liters of water
and about 5 pounds of cement (inner structure), totaling about 13.8 pounds of thermal
storage. Our last temperature reading was 163.7 degrees F. We ended here due to the fact
that the power delivered by the solar panel was beginning to become insufficient to boil
our water. There needed to be more direct exposure to sunlight in order to power our
cooker.

For a second experiment, we decide to cook about 4 liters of chili containing

tomato, onion, beans, sauce, and ground turkey. The ground turkey was cooked
separately for proper cooking before being added to the chili. We decide to lower our
resistance of our burner to 3.1 ohms. The results are shown below.
 55

Figure 6.2: Test #2

The 4 liters of food warmed up a bit faster than the previous experiment (heating
up the 4 liters of water). Also, the cooker electrical power input varied between 65 to 75
watts, which is possibly due to the fact that we lowered the resistance of our burner. We
started cooking around 10:00 AM. We ended after 6 hours cooking with our end
temperature being 174.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The disparity in our graph between 100 and
150 minutes was caused by us opening the cooker in order to stir the food to ensure it
wasn’t going to burn. We decided that with such low power, the chili would not burn and
left the lid on for the remaining time. We did however lose around 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

Lastly, we did one more test so we can compare this cooker to our previous
cookers. We used the same burner with 3.1 ohms. Again, we had about 65 to 75 watts of
electrical power depending on the insolent sunlight. Our results are shown below in
 56
Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3: Test #3

6.3 - Plan for Uganda

Omar and Chris went to Uganda on July 12, 2016 for four weeks with Aid Africa.
Through funding from Cal Poly, all materials were bought upon arrival and ovens were
built and implemented in villages. With all of the data collected from the second
prototype testing, we knew what to expect with the ovens built based off of their
geometries, burner resistance, and solar incidence in Africa. Due to materials availability,
some changes to the overall design were made. Two separate prototype stoves were built
and tested while in Ugandan. Once the superior stove was decided on, two of these stoves
were implemented into Ugandan villages. The villagers were shown how to use and fix
the ovens if they got broken. Air quality monitors were purchased in the US prior to
leaving so that air quality within the villager’s homes could be tracked. This gave us data
that potentially could be used for carbon funding. Peter Keller as well as other Aid Africa
employees frequent this part of Uganda, so the villagers who received the stoves could be
checked up on and asked about their opinions on the stoves. The results of the stove
implementation are described in detail in Chapter 7.

6.4 - Comparison to Thermal Modeling

Figure 6.4 shows the temperature of 1kg of water (1 liter) heated with 3.5 kg
concrete forming the inner cylinder of the design shown in Figure 5.5. The red points of
 57
the figure are actual data points, and the black line is the model defined in section 4.10.3.
The experimental temperature gain in the beginning is less than that predicted by the
model. This may be due to the initial temperature of the concrete enclosure being lower
than the initial temperature of the water, or less than ideal sunlight exposure for the solar
panel. The model uses an input power of 75 W, which was the average measured output
power of the solar panel over the course of the test as measured by a power meter. As the
model reaches a boiling temperature, it stops iterating new temperature values and
instead outputs 100°C because the water will never exceed this temperature.

Figure 6.4: Temperature of water over time during heating (red diamonds),
compared to the thermal model (black line)

We ended this experiment at boiling, but we can calculate the maximum

temperature that the solar cooker could achieve if water is not present (because it has all
boiled off, or the stove is left on without anything inside) by setting the heat lost through
the insulation equal to the power provided by heater, yielding 185°C or 365°F. This
maximum temperature increases with increased thickness and quality of insulation
indicating potential risk of combustion if no water is present.

6.5 - Power Measurement Calculation

Figure 6.5 displays the temperature of about 2.7 kg of water in the solar cooker of
Figure 5.5, brought to a boil and allowed to cool. We can find the relevant power terms
through the use of equation 4.13, where En is the energy, and �� is the temperature
increase or decrease. Taking the slope of the cooling curve (red line) at 90°C yields a
temperature loss rate of 6.67°C/hr, corresponding to thermal loss rate of 20.7 W.
Similarly, the 19.2°C/hr of thermal gain at 90°C corresponds to 59.6 W of thermal intake.
If you take the sum of these values, you get a total power input of 80.3 W, consistent with
our readings of the solar panel output. This value is higher than our average power input
of 75 watts because the solar intensity around the time of our measurements was close to
the ideal for our heating element resistance.
 58

Figure 6.5: Temperature of 2.7kg of water in solar cooker. The heater was turned
off at 260 minutes represented by the red data point. Data after this point shows the
cooling of the system. The slopes of the red lines indicate the temperature gain/loss
over time and are used to calculate power.
 59
Chapter 7 - Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 - Implementation in Uganda

After receiving the Baker and Koob Endowments for the summer of 2016, our
project got the opportunity to implement our design in Ugandan villages. We received
enough funding for four students to travel to Gulu, Uganda for four weeks over the
summer. This group of students included two students from our project, Chris and Omar,
as well as Ian Stone, a physics major, and Madison Fleming, an industrial technologies
major. The students were accompanied by Peter Keller, the head of a non-profit Aid
Africa who is based out of Uganda. During their four weeks there, the students
researched, tested, and implemented solar cookstove technology as well as assisted Aid
Africa with their projects.

Once in Uganda, the students realized that the designs previously described in this
report were not feasible for implementation in the region they were in. The final design
that included mainly metallic parts was priced out by a local metal shop and deemed too
expensive by the students. The design that is described in the beginning of this section
which consisted of digging into the ground was also deemed infeasible. The students
planned on implementing the stoves inside the villagers’ huts, which were small and built
on hardened clay. This would make it difficult to dig into the ground and fit this into their
home. With these limitations in mind the students came up with a new design to
implement into the villages. Several prototypes were also built and tested there before
implementation.

7.1.1 - Technical Design/Specifications

All materials besides wiring for the heating element and the testing devices were
purchased locally in Uganda. Prior to the trip Peter Keller of Aid Africa informed the
students that all materials needed for the cookstoves could easily be purchased in the
town of Gulu, Uganda, where the students would be for the majority of their stay. These
materials were purchased at different stores in Gulu where prices and quality varied. The
prices shown in Table 7.1 reflect the final price paid by the students for each item, but for
future reference these prices may not reflect the average local prices.
 60
Table 7.1: Cost analysis of Ugandan cookstoves

As you can see in Table 7.1, each stove cost around $125 including the solar
panel. With the solar panel costing around $100 (less than $1 per Watt), the remaining
materials were only about $25. The solar panel purchased was a 120W polycrystalline
panel produced by Sunshine Solar (Model AP-PM-120). The panel’s statistics can be
seen in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Solar panel statistics

These statistics were tested by the students using a multimeter and were deemed
fairly accurate. The students used these given statistics to design an optimum heating
element for the cookstoves. Four separate heating elements were built, two of which were
prefabricated by the other students at Cal Poly. Since the prefabricated elements were
designed for a 100W solar panel their resistances were too high so others had to be built.
These heating elements had a resistance of 2.5 Ohms. Several geometries of the heating
element and configurations of the nichrome wire were tested. The square mold with a
zig-zag design was found to be the best suited for the stove since the heat was evenly
distributed throughout the heating element. The high temperature fiberglass and copper
wire attached to the heating element could withstand temperatures up to 500°C. This was
a critical part of the design in order to ensure that the wire did not melt. The final mold
for the heating element was created and shown in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2 shows the
heating element once the cement and sand mixture has dried and hardened.
 61

Figure 7.1: Ni-chrome wire configuration of the heating element

Figure 7.2: Dried heating element

 62

Once the heating elements were tested, the students built two separate prototypes
in their office in Gulu for testing prior to implementation. The first prototype consisted of
two separate burlap sacks containing rice hulls, one for the base of the stove the other for
the top. This was similar to the initial “hay bale” conceptual design. As pictured in Figure
7.3, a circular hole with a diameter slightly larger than the diameter of the pot being used
was cut in the base. Mesh wire was laid and mudded in so that the rice hulls would not
fall out of the base. Small wooden supports were placed at the bottom of this to hold the
heating element flush against the pot. Once the pot was placed on the heating element,
the other burlap sack would be placed on top of the pot to cover the pot and base of the
stove to retain heat.

Figure 7.3: Burlap sack prototype

This prototype was tested twice. The first test was not recorded due to insufficient
sunlight. Test #2 was completed on July 26th, 2016. One and a half cups of local peas
were boiled in two and a half cups of water starting at noon. The test lasted around five
hours, its longevity due to inconsistent sunlight and rain. Temperature inside the pot was
 63
recorded every thirty minutes using a thermocouple while power measurements were
taken every thirty seconds using an Arduino data logger. Figure 7.4 shows the
temperature of the food graphed over the power output of the solar panel throughout the
test. The gap in the temperature data was during a rainstorm where the panel and logger
had to be brought inside. As you can see from the figure, the hottest the stove got up to
was around 144°F. The slope of the temperature data was calculated during these two
periods of more consistent sunlight in order to compare the rate of temperature change of
this prototype to the other.

Figure 7.4: Burlap sack prototype test #2

This design was not implemented into any villages due to its low durability. The
students thought that if the stove needed to last around 10 weeks with several uses a day
then this design would not be feasible.

The second prototype built and tested had a much different design. It consisted of
two separate parts: the outer cylinder and the inner cook chamber. To form the outer
cylinder a locally bought reed mat was used in order to keep the rice hulls contained. The
mat was held up by pieces of 9mm rebar hammered upright into the ground in a circular
formation. Once the reed mat was placed upright and woven through these rebar uprights,
the mat was tied together end to end and an additional two support ropes were tied around
the entire cylinder to keep it from bulging under the weight of the rice hulls.
The inner cooking cylinder was built out of an aluminum cooking pot with a hole cut in it
for the wiring of the heating element. This inner chamber was dimensioned so that the
cooking pot being used had a slightly smaller diameter allowing it to fit snuggly into the
cooking chamber. This decreases the chance of free convection within the cooking
chamber. The cooking chamber was also shorter than the cook pot so that after the food is
cooked it can easily be removed from the cook chamber. Once assembled, the inner
cooking chamber was placed directly in the middle of the outer cylinder, as seen in
Figure 7.5.

The inner cook chamber’s diameter allows 8 inches of room for insulation
between it and the outer reed mat cylinder. To elevate the cooking chamber and allow
 64
room for insulation under the cook chamber, three rebar supports were tied onto the outer
part of the chamber. These rebar supports were dimensioned to allow 8 inches of
insulation directly under it.

Figure 7.5: top view of reed mat design

This prototype was tested five times but only the two initial tests were recorded.
Both have temperature data but only the first has power data, which is limited within this
test. These two tests can be seen in Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7.
 65

Figure 7.6: Reed mat prototype test #1

Figure 7.7: Reed mat prototype test #2

Although it is a very environmentally affected variable, the average rise in

temperature over time was taken from all of the prototype tests and tabulated in Table 7.3
to compare these two prototypes.
 66
Table 7.3: Prototype test coefficients

As you can see from the table the second prototype had a higher rate of change in
heat, making it a more efficient oven. Also due to its durability and more aesthetically
pleasing design, this prototype was chosen to be implemented into the village huts.

7.1.2 - Implementation Strategy

The group of research students worked closely with a non-profit organization, Aid
Africa. Aid Africa is located in Gulu, a city in Northern Uganda and their primary
projects focus on tree distribution, clean-water wells, and improved cookstove
distribution. The students were put into contact with the president of the organization,
Peter Keller, who gave them all the necessary resources and information they needed for
the trip.

Once in Uganda, the students first visited the villages to see what the current
cooking situation is like. Once they got an understanding for the logistical cooking
constraints that are common within the Ugandan villages, they began reiterating their
solar electric cookstove design to fit the witnessed needs of the village women. As
previously mentioned, the students purchased all the necessary materials for the solar
stove in Gulu. This is an important point which supports the long term sustainability of
their stove given that the necessary materials are readily and inexpensively available
within this specific region. The previous design work for this project was deemed
infeasible due to the cost of metal. That is why a cheaper design was chosen.

Once the group had chosen the reed mat design that they felt would fit the needs
of the end users in the villages, they were ready to install the solar electric stoves. The
implementation of the solar cookstoves involved all four students as well as a translator.
The students made sure to explain the basic principle of the solar electric cookstove, the
potential uses for the stove, and the proper maintenance/upkeep for the stove. One key
emphasis made was that the solar electric stove could be used to completely cook a raw
meal or, if time or weather was an issue, it could be used as an insulated cooker that does
not require energy from the solar panel. This would mean the women could briefly heat
up food with their traditional cookstove and then transfer it to the insulated cook chamber
of the solar electric stove for it to continue cooking without the use of additional fuel or
energy. Furthermore, the students asked that the women help them in building the stove:
hammering the rebar supports into the ground, building the outer cylinder, laying the rice
hulls, cleaning the solar panel. The students thought the women may have more pride and
 67
understanding for something that they also put work into building. Lastly, the students
emphasized that those who used the implemented solar electric stove could adapt the
design to fit their needs as they saw fit. The students only hoped that the villagers would
share with them their thoughts regarding the stove’s design, both positive and negative,
as well as any adaptations that they made to the stove for enhanced usability or
efficiency.

7.1.3 - Air Quality Improvement

One of the biggest benefits for users in the design of new improved cookstoves is
air quality. These new stoves are meant to burn fuel more efficiently, or not burn any at
all. While one of the reasons may be to reduce or eliminate the need for a large amount of
fuel, the other is to keep particulate matter out families’ homes, eyes, and lungs. With 4.8
million people dying from causes directly related to particulate matter, it is no trivial
problem. The solar electric stove provides an emission-free way to cook, eliminating any
irritants and carcinogens from the air. On their research trip, the students wanted to
record their progress, so they brought an array of air-quality monitors. The students
implemented those monitors into the two homes in which they installed their solar
cookstoves. From those monitors they collected data from before and after they installed
the stove. The data they collected implied that the families cooked with their traditional
stoves about a quarter of the time as they did prior to the solar stove being installed.

Figure 7.8: Pre-stove installation particulate matter

 68

Figure 7.9: Post-stove installation particulate matter

Although the data is promising, since the students could only record about 80 total
hours of data there are variables that could affect the data. Placing air monitors and solar
panels in a house was essentially giving them something incredibly valuable which
prompted the families to lock their doors and keep them closed more often. This in turn
means there is less fresh air circulating through the house. Another concern would be that
the families would use the stove in the beginning since it is in the beginning a novelty
item and are curious as to how it works. To get truly relevant data it would be ideal to
have a monitor on site for at least a month, not four days.

7.1.4 - Results

The villages that the students implemented the solar electric cookstoves in were
located in very remote parts of Uganda where phone and other telecommunications are
rare. This highlights another salient reason for the students’ partnership with the local
Ugandan non-profit, Aid Africa. The students were able to keep track of the progress and
adoption of their solar electric cookstoves by having the Aid Africa team make periodic
check-ins to the villages. On the most recent field check-in, the Aid Africa staff gave the
following report following their direct field visit:

“Hi all, Here's your subject with your cooker. We visited her yesterday and she tells us
they've used the cooker every day. They cooked beef in about 3.5 hours and they've
cooked rice, okra and eggplant. Then, there's was enough daylight left to heat water for
bathing. Don't underestimate the significance of that. They would never waste precious
firewood on an extravagance like bathing water. We all like our hot baths; they do, too.
One note: the water was too hot and they had to dilute it. You've made a significant
improvement in their lives. Staff will return periodically to check on the cookers. No one
was at the other homestead but the father came by to unlock the hut and tell us that
whenever they are home, they use the cooker. We saw that the panel was there and was
 69
kept clean. I asked them to think about how the cooker could be made better and this
family had a ready answer. They want a battery system to charge cell phones and to use a
light. Again, on behalf of these families whose lives you have impacted, thank you!”

Figure 7.10: Recipient of the first solar cookstove

The students, whom have since returned to the United States, plan to keep in close
contact with the Aid Africa staff and look forward to more updates about the use of their
solar electric stoves as well possible design modifications that could be used to enhance
its utility in this type of rural setting.

7.2 - Future Recommendations

The Cal Poly students who travelled to Uganda have had an incredibly
educational and enlightening experience on their research trip to test the solar electric
stove in Uganda, one of its potential end markets. After witnessing the living and cooking
conditions of those living within rural and urban setting in Uganda, the students envision
a large need and potential fit for the solar electric cook stove. Especially after receiving a
positive review from the villagers using the cookstoves, the students are hopeful that this
technology could be spread to other parts of the world and adapted to help combat similar
issues of indoor cooking pollution and environmental degradation.

The students understand that implementation of the solar electric stove in

different regions around the world will necessitate alternative designs which are made
 70
from different available materials and with varying cultural parameters. However, the
product design modifications are expected to vary on region and should not increase the
price or change the utility of the solar electric stove drastically. In order to streamline the
design process, a guideline for different design variables such as insulation thickness and
burner resistance was created. This will allow anyone to go into a different region of the
world and easily design a solar cooker out of completely different materials and yield the
same performance results. This guideline is seen in Appendix H.

Additional add-ons have also been considered for our current design. Future
additions may include battery-LED light systems and cell phone charging. Ugandan users
seemed to show interest in both of these add-ons when asked. A microcomputer may be
important to control the cooking, manage electrical power, record performance data, such
as temperature and power output. Future challenges are electronic control of cooking,
switching power to electronics, logging use for carbon market verification, and
development of remote financing methods whereby users pay daily for the use of
electronic products.

Another point of interest that has developed as implemented stoves are being used
further is the use of the cooker to heat water for bathing. Hot baths are a luxury that are
often taken for granted by Americans. Giving villagers this luxury especially in colder
climates could drastically improve their lives. Going forward, we may want to branch off
from an oven to specifically a water heater.

Immersion heaters are currently being researched by students at Cal Poly for use
in solar cookers similar to ours. These heaters could be more efficient than the heating
elements we used due to the decrease in heat lost to the base of the inner cooking
chamber. Further research needs to be done for this to be confirmed but this may be
another design to consider in the future.
 71
Appendix

Appendix A - QFD
 72

Appendix B Design Sketches

Appendix B.1- Design Sketches - Hay Bale Design
 73

Appendix B.2 - Design Sketches - Insulated Bag

 74

Appendix B.3 - Design Sketches - Drop in w/ Lid, Oven Style

 75

Appendix B.4 - Design Decision - Barrel with lid Design

 76

Appendix C: Final design CAD

 77

C.1 - Base Assembly

 78

C.1.1 - Base Plate

 79

C.1.2 - Base Cylinder - flat

 80

C.1.3 - Base Cylinder - Rolled

 81

C.2.1 - Shell - Flat

 82

C.2.2 - Shell - Rolled

 83

C.2.3 - Rebar Handles - Bent

 84

C.2.4 - U-Bolt

C.2.5 - ¼-inch Rivet

 85

C.2.6 - Outer Cylinder Sub-Assembly

 86

C.3.1 - Cooking Chamber Structure

 87

C.4.1 - Lid
 88

C.4.2 - Handle
 89

C.4.3 - Hook
 90

C.4.4 - M10 bolt

C.4.5 - M10 Washer

C.4.6 - M10 Nut

 91

C.4.7 - Chicken Wire - Flat

 92

C.4.8 - Chicken Wire - Base

 93

C.4.9 - Chicken Wire Assembled

 94

C.4.10 - Lid Assembly

 95

C.4.11 - Lid Exploded Assembly

 96

C.5 - Full Assembly - Exploded View

 97

Appendix D: List of Vendors, Contact information and pricing

Prototype materials:
● Home Depot - homedepot.com
○ 32 gal. Garbage can $14.97
○ Chicken wire $10.99
○ 18qt tin can $9.88
○ Tarp $6.99
○ 16 gauge wire $3.00
○ 8” electric range burner $7.50
● Eco Worthy Solar - ecoworthysolar.com
○ 100W solar panel $113.99
 98

Appendix E: Vendor supplied Component Specifications and Data

Sheets
Data sheet not available from supplier. There is only information on the website.

100W Solar Panel Specifications:

 99
Appendix F: Detailed Supporting Analysis
DFMEA Analysis
100
101
 102
Appendix G: Other Information
Steady State Conductive Heat Transfer Calculations
 103
Appendix H: Owner’s Manual
Structure

The first step in creating a solar stove is to create a structure for the insulation. There are
several versions of a structure that one can make. The structure should be rigid since it
will be holding the insulating material around the pot. We demonstrate 2 designs, one of
which is dug into the ground, the other uses reed mats and metal rods. The design of the
structure is not constrained to these ideas as any design that fits your materials and
situation as holds the insulation will work.

The in ground structure:

The hole-in-ground design consists of digging a hole approximately 3 ft. by 3 ft. and 12
inches deep. The hole should allow for at least enough insulation to fulfill the minimum
requirement as defined by figure H-1. In order to elevate the structure from the ground,
the dirt and clay mixture that was left over from the hole is used to create mud bricks
mixed with straw. The mud to straw ratio is 1:1. A structure using wooden 2x4’s is used
to maintain the shape of the bricks. Once the bricks have dried, they are laid out and
stacked around the hole so that the total height of the cooker is about 2 feet high (height
is determined by the insulation requirement - this is merely a suggestion)

Insulation

Figure H-1: This figure shows the minimum thickness of insulation required based on
the thermal conductivity (black line). The three sets of data points represent the heat loss
 104
during boiling with different thicknesses of insulation. Each curve represents a different
thermal conductivity: 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 W/m2K.

While figure H-1 shows the minimum thickness of insulation needed, it is advised to use
much more insulation than that in order to limit heat losses and boil at a faster rate. Note
that at their respective thermal conductivities, it would be impossible to boil water with
any less insulation than the thickness relating to 100 Watts of heat loss. We only have
100 watts available, so if more heat is being lost it will never reach a boiling temperature.
As you can see from the shape of the curves, increasing the insulation thickness becomes
less effective at greater values as the data asymptotically approaches no heat loss. With
that being said, it is still important to use much more than the minimum value as is
reasonable economically of your insulation type and structure.

Heating Element

The optimum resistance for the heating element is determined by the solar panel
characteristics. The figure H-2 below illustrates several solar panel power ratings. This
figure can be used to estimate the ideal resistance for your heating element.

Figure H-2: Ideal burner resistance for specific PV power and voltage.
 105
References
Hogarth, 2012, J. R. Hogarth. Promotion of diffusion of solar lanterns through
microfinance and carbon finance: A case study of FINCA ­ Uganda’s solar loan
programme Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (2012): 430­438.

Jack 2011, W. Jack, T. Suri. "Mobile Money: The Economics of M-Pesa." Working
Paper 16721, National Bureau of Economic Research (2011),
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16721.pdf

Joshi 2013, S.B. Joshi, A. R. Jani. “A New Design of Solar Cooker for Optimum
Utilization”, Conference Paper, Solar Asia – 2013, 2nd International Conference on
Solar Energy Materials, Solar Cells & Solar Energy Applications, 22-24 Aug. 2013,
Kulal Lumpur, Malysia

Lambe 2015, F. lambe, M. Jurisoo, H. Wanjiru, J. Senyagwa. "Bringing Clean, Safe,

Affordable Cooking Energy to Households across Africa: An Agenda for Action." The
New Climate Economy. Stockholm Environmental Institute (2015).

Lim 2013, S. S. Lim et al. “A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–
2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.” The lancet
380.9859 (2013): 2224­2260.

MacCarty 2008, N. MacCarty, D. Ogle, D. Still. “A laboratory comparison of the global

warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves.” Energy for
sustainable development 12.2 (2008): 56­65.

Rein 2009, G. Rien. "Smouldering Combustion Phenomena in Science and

Technology." International Review of Chemical Engineering (2009).

“Scald Injury Prevention Educator's Guide." Ameriburn.org. American Burn Association

Schwartz, P. (2015) High Efficiency Low Power Cooking and/or Heating

Shaw, M.D. "Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of Timothy Hay."Research

Gate. N.p., n.d. Web.

Smita B. Joshi and A. R. Jani, “Photovoltaic and Thermal Hybridized Solar

Cooker,” ISRN Renewable Energy, vol. 2013, Article ID 746189, 5 pages, 2013.
doi:10.1155/2013/746189

Smith 2010, K.R. Smith. What's cooking? A brief update. Energy for Sustainable
Development 14.4 (2010): 251­252.
 106
Smith 2011, K.R. Smith, K. Dutta. Cooking with gas. Energy for Sustainable
Development 15.2 (2011): 115­116.

Subramanian 2014, M. Subramanian. “Global health: Deadly dinners.” Nature 509,

548–551 (28 May 2014) doi:10.1038/509548a

Swanson 2006, R.M. Swanson. “A Vision for Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics.” Wiley.
SunPower Corp., (2006).

WHO. "Household Air Pollution and Health." World Health Organization.

Wilson 2016, D.L. Wilson, D.R. Talancon, R.L. Winslow, X. Linares, A.J. Gadgil.
“Avoided emissions of a fuel-efficient biomass cookstove dwarf embodied
emissions.” Development Engineering 1. June (2016): 45-52.